As a result of Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney
General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor
Airport, we get to enjoy the treat of another exhausting
Clintonworld story about influence, and whether it is or isn't
being unduly exerted.

Similarly, it's possible foreign governments donated to the Clinton Foundation because
they viewed it as the most efficient available philanthropic
opportunity, without regard for the favorable impression it might
make on Bill and Hillary Clinton.

It's possible Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for three
speeches because they thought she would be really
interesting, not because they thought the payment might help the
bank make a favorable impression on a potential future
president.

It's possible Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and commuted
the sentences of the New Square Four because he genuinely
believed they were victims of miscarriages of justice.

The list goes on and on.

My biggest concern is not that anything illegal happened in
any of these cases. It is that the Clintons have no apparent
concern for appearances of impropriety, as long as they
believe their actions cannot get them in trouble with the law.

Given how fragile trust in elite politicians and institutions is
today, I believe this blasé attitude about appearances stands to
do much more damage than it did in the 1990s.

Some of the scandals that have surrounded the Clintons over
the last 40 years have been invented from whole cloth by
political opponents and a hostile media.

But others have started from real wrongdoing — anything
from pardoning the ex-husband of a major Democratic donor to
carrying on a sexual affair with a White House intern — that
a preponderance of the electorate decided to look past, judging
that they weren't that important compared to the actual
business of the government.

This "hey, it's legal" approach worked when the economy and
wages were growing strongly, because voters weren't inclined
to be too suspicious about whether Washington politicians really
had their best interests at heart. "Clinton scandals" were
routinely touted by the right but ignored by the left.

No longer — Clinton's receipt of speaking fees from Goldman
Sachs was a big problem in the Democratic primary, a sign of
voters' increasing mistrust of establishment politicians
even in their own parties.

I worry about this because Clinton is not just the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president. She has become a stand-in for
establishment forces that are besieged by populism from the right
and the left. She has the heavy responsibility of
defending institutions that, despite their imperfect performance
over the last 15 years, are essential for upholding global
economic prosperity and preventing war.

If anything goes badly wrong in the world over the next four
years — not terribly unlikely under any president, given all the
upheaval in Europe and China — I'm worried that voters will look
at the webs of influence surrounding Clinton and be more inclined
to be suspicious that problems affecting their
livelihoods have arisen because of self-dealing by
elites.

And I'm worried that voters will then choose candidates in
future elections who promise to tear down the useful institutions
that many of us will be reluctantly voting for Clinton in the
interest of defending.

This is no time to be casual about appearances of
impropriety — a fact that Barack Obama seems to have
understood in leading his low-scandal administration. I am
worried that Clinton does not understand it, and that the result
will be a boost to the damaging populism that is sweeping
Europe.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.